Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Othrs
2025 Latest Caselaw 7955 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Othrs on 23 October, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                             Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010231552025




                                                       2025:GAU-AS:14096

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/6021/2025

         DIBRUGARH FISHERY COP SOCIETY LTD
         DIBRUGARH, ASSAM,
         REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIKASH DAS,
         S/O- LATE BOPUL DAS, AGED 54 YEARS,
         R/O- NORTH AMOLAPATTY, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE JOINT SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          FISHERY DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         3:THE MISSING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
          REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
         VILL- KARPUMPULI
          P.O. GOGAMUKH
          DIST. DHEMAJI
         ASSAM

         4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
         THE MISSING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL

          VILL- KARPUMPULI
          P.O. GOGAMUKH
          DIST. DHEMAJI
          ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7


          5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
           DIBRUGARH
          ASSAM

          6:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
           BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
           CHACHAL
          VIP ROAD
           GUWAHATI-781036
           KAMRUP (METRO) DISTRICT
          ASSAM

          7:DIPEN TAYENG
           C/O- NABIN TAYENG

          VILL- MOINA MIRI GAON
          P.O- BORBORUAH
          P.S AND DIST- DIBRUGARH
          ASSA

                For the Petitioner(s)   : Mr. S. Banik, Advocate

                For the Respondent(s)   : Ms. S. Chutia, Standing Counsel
                                        : Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel
                                        : Mr. M. Chetia, Government Advocate

                  Date of Hearing       : 23.10.2025
                  Date of Judgment      : 23.10.2025




                               BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S. Banik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. S. Chutia, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. I have also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 Page No.# 3/7

and 4 and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5.

2. The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself taking into account the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities are completely contrary to the law laid down by this Court in its judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co- operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and Others {WP(C) No.3065/2024} .

3. Taking into account that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is well settled, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the notice upon the Respondent No.7 can be dispensed with.

4. The Petitioner herein which is a registered Fishery Cooperative Society had participated in a tender process initiated by the Additional District Commissioner, (Fishery) Dibrugarh dated 22.08.2025 for settlement of various fishery including Sessa Nadi Part-I Fishery. It is the case of the Petitioner that Sessa Nadi Meen Mahal which is settled by the Mising Autonomous Council vide a Settlement Order dated 11.09.2025 is a part of Sessa Nadi Part-I Fishery.

5. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the Mising Autonomous Council in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) could not have invited any tender

for settlement of fishery as well as settle the fishery in favour of the Respondent No.7.

Page No.# 4/7

6. This Court enquired with Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel who represents the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as to how the Mising Autonomous Council have initiated the process of settlement of the fishery being Sessa Nadi Meen Mahal (Sessa Kiner Maina Mising Gaon to Sessa Mukh Rongara Gaon) vide the settlement order dated 11.09.2025 in respect to Sessa Nadi Part-I Fishery.

7. The learned Standing counsel submitted that the issue is duly covered by the judgment passed this Court in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co- operative Society Ltd. (supra) wherein this Court had categorically held that

the Mising Autonomous Council has no authority or jurisdiction to settle any fishery.

8. This Court has duly taken note of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) as well as the observations made by this Court in the said judgment at paragraph Nos. 48, 49 and 50 which being relevant are reproduced herein under:

"48. The question therefore arises as to whether in such a situation where the declared fishery as well as all natural water bodies are outside the administrative control of the MAC can the General Council of the MAC settle any fishery. The answer to the same has to be in the negative taking into account that the Rules of 1953 as well as the notification dated 07.03.2017 would have an overriding effect in view of Section 81 of the Act of 1995 and consequently, if the MAC does not have the administrative control over the natural water bodies, whether a declared fishery or not, it would have no right to grant settlement or for that matter initiate any process for settlement.

Page No.# 5/7

49. This Court further finds it relevant to analyze the submissions from another angle in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MAC to the effect that Section 18 & 43 of the Act of 1995 has to be harmoniously and purposively interpreted with Section 81 of the Act of 1995 keeping in view of the preamular object behind the enactment of the Act of 1995. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that a statutory provision should be construed according to the intent of they that made it. Normally, such intent is gathered from the language of the provision. If the language employed by the legislature is precise and plain, and thus by itself proclaims the legislative intent in unequivocal terms, the same must be given effect to, regardless of the consequences that may follow. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, it would be seen that though the Act of 1995 was enacted to give maximum autonomy to the MAC, but a reading of the provisions of the Act of 1953, viz. Sections 20, 23, 44, 45, 79, 81 etc. would show that the State Government retains the overall control over the functioning of the MAC. The power to impose, levy and collect tax is subject to the State Government issuing Notification, framing Rules as well as granting approval to the byelaws to be framed. It is also seen that the powers of the General Council as well as the Village Council are also subservient to the powers of the State Government to carry out the purpose of the Act. The reason is obvious from a reading of Article 162 of the Constitution which only confer upon the State Government the executive power in respect to the matters to which the Legislature of the State has the power to make laws. In the instant case, Entry 21 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution relates to Fisheries. It is also pertinent to mention that MAC is a creation of an Act of the State Legislature which cannot be at par with the District Councils mentioned in the 6th Schedule of the Constitution wherein as per Paragraph No.6 (2) of the 6th Schedule, the executive power could be vested by the Governor. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that taking into account the provisions of the Act of 1995 and more particularly Section 81 of the Act of 1995, no interpretation can be given thereby to hold that the MAC Page No.# 6/7

have authority to settle fisheries when they don't have the administrative control over any declared fishery including any natural water bodies.

50. Another aspect of the matter, which is the supplementary point for determination is as to whether in absence of the prescription which is required to be made by the Government of Assam by framing Rules under Section 79 of the Act of 1995 and further without there being any Byelaws made which are required to be made in terms with Section 23 of the Act of 1995, whether the General Council can exercise the executive powers in respect to fisheries. The answer has to be in the negative in as much as Section 23 of the Act of 1995 categorically states that the Regulation, Control and Administration of the subjects mentioned in Section 18 of 1995 has to be prescribed by the Byelaws. As there are no Byelaws for regulation, administration and control of fisheries, the MAC cannot exercise its executive powers over the fisheries."

9. This Court further enquired with Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Mising Autonomous Council as to whether any appeal against the judgment and order passed in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) was filed. The learned

Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that there is no appeal filed by the Mising Autonomous Council. In other words, the Mising Autonomous Council have duly accepted the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dibrugarh Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra).

10. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the settlement order dated 11.09.2025 made by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the Respondent No.7 is without jurisdiction and authority and Page No.# 7/7

accordingly, this Court therefore sets aside the settlement order dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.4.

11. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant